Sandiganbayan justices' inhibition saddens Jinggoy

MANILA, Philippines - Detained Sen. Jinggoy Estrada on Tuesdahy expressed hope that the move of the three Sandiganbayan magistrates to inhibit from further hearing the plunder case against him will not affect his call for a speedy trial.

“I am surprised by the sudden and unexpected turn of events. I hope that this development will not result to further delay in the resolution of my case, especially the bail proceedings,” Estrada said.

Associate Justices Roland Jurado, Alexander Gesmundo and Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta, all members of the Sandiganbayan's Fifth Division, informed Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang of their decision to inhibit from handling the plunder case against Estrada in a letter. They cited personal reasons as basis for the move.

In a statement from his detention center at the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camp Crame, Estrada also hoped that there was no political pressure in the three justices' decision to seek recusal in the plunder and graft charges against him.

Estrada said he and his lawyers will remain prepared for the scheduled trial for bail hearings.

“Should their request for recusal be granted, we will await the formal announcement on which division the case will be transferred and will just prepare for the next bail hearing scheduled on Jan. 12,” Estrada said.

“Lastly, I sincerely hope that this is not a product of political maneuverings from outside forces in an effort to influence the PDAF cases,” he added.

With this development, the anti-graft court’s decision on pending motions filed by Estrada will have to be put on hold, including his motions for bail and to compel the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to bare the bank accounts and financial records of pork barrel fund scam whistle-blowers led by Benhur Luy.

As for his request for a Christmas and New Year furlough filed only last Friday, Fifth Division clerk of court Ma. Teresa Pabulayan said “it will not be acted upon.”

In a previous report, Sandiganbayan executive clerk of court and spokesman Renato Bocar said Tang or the Sandiganbayan as a whole does not have the authority to deny the request for inhibition of Jurado, Gesmundo and Estoesta.

He noted that based on the Rules of Court, magistrates can inhibit from a case “on just and valid grounds or compelling reasons,” which include personal reasons.

Bocar said only the Supreme Court can compel the three justices to be more specific on their reason for wanting to inhibit, if Tang decides to bring the matter before the High Tribunal which has administrative supervision over Sandiganbayan justices.